One of the more surprising developments in the ongoing global warming debate
is the Clinton Administration's success in lining up major corporate support
for the greenhouse gas reductions stipulated under the Kyoto Protocol.

Signed by the United States and 158 other nations in Kyoto, Japan in
December 1997 but as yet not ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Kyoto Protocol
would require industrialized nations to make significant reductions in carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions - emissions some policymakers
allege are causing dangerous warming of the planet. The United States would
be required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30 percent
over 15 years, resulting in the loss of millions of jobs, loss of global
competitiveness and rampant inflation.

Despite such dire economic consequences, at least 19 companies have endorsed
the emissions reductions, including some of the biggest names of American
industry such as Boeing, Sunoco, Weyerhauser and DuPont. The key to the
White House's success in co-opting industry lies in the fact that every
corporation that has endorsed emissions reductions stands to profit from
these climate change policies.

Although it is obvious why companies specializing in alternative energy
sources, such as Enron (natural gas, wind and solar power), were immediate
supporters of emissions reductions, the Administration's success in securing
the backing of key oil companies was a surprise. In May 1997, British Petroleum
(now British Petroleum Amoco) became the first major oil company to endorse
the White House's view that global warming represented a major problem and
announced it would take steps to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.
Later that year, Royal/Dutch Shell also announced its support for reducing
emissions.1 Another explanation, however, for their concern over the environment
may be found in the fact that Royal Dutch/Shell and British Petroleum Amoco
believe that there is money to be made in renewable energy. A 1998 Royal
Dutch/Shell study concluded that renewable energy could supply half the
world's energy by the middle of the 21st century. With an eye on this future
market - and aware of how emissions reductions would increase its profitability
- both companies announced that they were increasing their investments in
renewable energy development by $1.5 billion soon after endorsing the Administration's
calls for cutting man-made emissions.2

One of the most significant developments in the emerging White House-industry
alliance occurred in May 1998 when the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
(backed by Enron) announced that 13 corporations agreed to join it in proselytizing
the Administration's global warming policies. These companies included Toyota,
3M, Lockheed Martin, American Electric Power, Intercontinental Energy Corporation,
U.S. Generating Company, Whirlpool, Maytag and United Technologies.3 The
common denominator uniting these disparate corporations is that each would
profit in some manner from implementation of emissions reductions.

For example, Toyota's decision to endorse emissions cuts makes perfect
business sense as it has already developed a product with lower emissions,
thus giving the company a major edge over U.S. competitors. This year, Toyota
unveiled the Prius sedan, a "hybrid" car that runs on a combination
of gas and electricity and gets 66 miles per gallon. Emissions limits would
be a godsend for the Japanese carmaker as the Prius could easily meet the
higher government-mandated fuel mileage standards that such cuts would require.4
Aerospace giants Boeing and United Technologies also stand to gain from
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions as both are leaders in developing
technologies such as lightweight metals that reduce fuel use, which the
Clinton Administration has publicly cited as necessary to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in the auto industry. No doubt, Boeing and United Technologies
presumably recognized the potential new markets that could open for their
technological expertise when it endorsed the Administration's emissions
reductions strategy.5 Similarly, Maytag has just developed a new - and expensive
- washing machine that is more energy efficient than older models and could
conceivably be in high demand in a more energy-conscious economy.6

Other companies support the emissions limits simply because they have
federal contracts that depend on supporting the Administration's global
warming agenda. Lockheed-Martin, for instance, operates several of the Department
of Energy's research laboratories where validating the global warming theory
is a top priority.7 Likewise, Honeywell contracts with the Department of
Energy to upgrade federal facilities to make them more energy efficient,
an activity that would be in higher demand if the Administration has its
way.8

Clearly, the Administration is employing a classic divide-and-conquer
strategy that plays upon narrow considerations of corporate self-interest
to gradually undermine, through a process of attrition, a constituency vital
to fighting ratification of the Kyoto agreement in the U.S. Senate. Although
much of the business community remains opposed to Kyoto, the Clinton White
House's skillful lobbying campaign could continue to cause businesses to
defect to the Administration's position and place additional pressure on
reluctant companies to end their opposition to the treaty.